REVIEW: Wonder Woman Can't Save Dull "Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice"

[Perry]

Golden Age Batman says hello.

*sigh*

Okay, let's put to rest once and for all this misconception that Batman was the Golden Age's version of The Punisher.

Yes, in the very early comics, Batman killed. Batman first appeared in May 1939. The no-kill policy for Batman and Superman was instituted by editor Whitney Ellsworth. Do you know when Ellsworth instituted this policy?

It wasn't in response to the Adam West show.

It wasn't at the dawn of the Silver Age.

It wasn't as a result of the institution of the Comics Code Authority.

It was in 1940.

Roughly a year after Batman's creation, he stopped killing. And for the vast majority of his 77-year history, he has been depicted as a character who has a code against killing. That means about 1% of Batman's history depicts him as a killer.

If we're going to go with the first appearance as gospel for all other incarnations to follow, then going by that logic, we need to get rid of Batman's utility belt. That didn't come around until several issues later. We also need to do away with Alfred as a caring, intelligent, witty butler and instead portray him as nothing more than a fat, bungling amateur detective played purely for laughs (maybe we could get Jack Black to play him).

The next Fantastic Four movie, by the way? Sue Storm shouldn't be called the Invisible Woman in it. Instead, she needs to be the Invisible Girl. And she has to be portrayed as a moron who can never accomplish anything on her own, constantly forgets she's using her powers, and decides that testing different combinations of perfumes on herself will make her scent invisible to dogs.

[Liven]

Well, wouldn't that mean that the no-kill policy was due to editorial meddling and that the creators had no intention of their heroes having a no-kill policy?

[Agent Z]

If comic book Batman is "sick" for not resorting to killing whenever he can help it, where does that leave manslaughtering, torture-branding movie Batman ?
I know I paid to see Batman vs Superman in theatre, not a glorified version of the Punisher facing him in a cool costume.
Some points can be rationalized to some extent in that movie, this isn't one of those IMO.

BvS Batman isn't any better. The film acknowledges this.

[Perry]

Well, wouldn't that mean that the no-kill policy was due to editorial meddling and that the creators had no intention of their heroes having a no-kill policy?

We have no way of knowing. I haven't seen anything that says Kane or Finger (or Siegel and Shuster in the case of Superman) were upset by this change in policy. But the whole idea that all editorial influence = bad is just so completely wrong-headed. I've worked with a number of editors in my fiction career, and 99% of the time, the "editorial meddling" ended up producing a far better story.

[Nite-Wing]

*sigh*

Okay, let's put to rest once and for all this misconception that Batman was the Golden Age's version of The Punisher.

Yes, in the very early comics, Batman killed. Batman first appeared in May 1939. The no-kill policy for Batman and Superman was instituted by editor Whitney Ellsworth. Do you know when Ellsworth instituted this policy?

It wasn't in response to the Adam West show.

It wasn't at the dawn of the Silver Age.

It wasn't as a result of the institution of the Comics Code Authority.

It was in 1940.

Roughly a year after Batman's creation, he stopped killing. And for the vast majority of his 77-year history, he has been depicted as a character who has a code against killing. That means about 1% of Batman's history depicts him as a killer.

If we're going to go with the first appearance as gospel for all other incarnations to follow, then going by that logic, we need to get rid of Batman's utility belt. That didn't come around until several issues later. We also need to do away with Alfred as a caring, intelligent, witty butler and instead portray him as nothing more than a fat, bungling amateur detective played purely for laughs (maybe we could get Jack Black to play him).

The next Fantastic Four movie, by the way? Sue Storm shouldn't be called the Invisible Woman in it. Instead, she needs to be the Invisible Girl. And she has to be portrayed as a moron who can never accomplish anything on her own, constantly forgets she's using her powers, and decides that testing different combinations of perfumes on herself will make her scent invisible to dogs.

Batman was created to be a shadow like vigilante who did kill but was revamped because The powers that be wanted the character to appeal to children(ie make more money) hence why Robin was introduced as well. You can literally say his Inception as a character is the truest representation and not the editorially mandated changes over the course of those 70 years later

[CliffHanger2]

If comic book Batman is "sick" for not resorting to killing whenever he can help it, where does that leave manslaughtering, torture-branding movie Batman ?
I know I paid to see Batman vs Superman in theatre, not a glorified version of the Punisher facing him in a cool costume.
Some points can be rationalized to some extent in that movie, this isn't one of those IMO.

Mentally he's not the healthiest cabbage in the patch but at least there was a logic to it. And he wasn't going out of his way to save the worst types of criminals at the expense of innocent life.

[Perry]

Batman was created to be a shadow like vigilante who did kill but was revamped because The powers that be wanted the character to appeal to children(ie make more money) hence why Robin was introduced as well. You can literally say his Inception as a character is the truest representation and not the editorially mandated changes over the course of those 70 years later

So we're supposed to ignore over seventy years of characterization and development because it happened due to editorial mandate? What kind of sense does that make?

[RikWriter]

So we're supposed to ignore over seventy years of characterization and development because it happened due to editorial mandate? What kind of sense does that make?

They ignored it in every other film version of Batman.

[Liven]

So we're supposed to ignore over seventy years of characterization and development because it happened due to editorial mandate? What kind of sense does that make?

Nobody is "supposed" to do anything. Also never claimed that all editorial meddling ended in an inferior product. I was simply saying that if editorial was the reason for the change, it was not what the creators had intended.

[Phil Clark]

Which is one of the ways fictional characters evolve. Whatever the change "represents" to anyone individually, the overall, external end result is still the evolution of the character and his worldview/philosophy of crime fighting over time. That's what Snyder was attempting to dramatize on screen.

Well, based on reactions, it would seem he took the wrong approach. While many liked it, many did not, and the box office figures showing a profit doesn't mean that the movie was a success. While no one will ever likely admit it, the film feels like a dismal failure because it didn't have a chance of breaking a billion globally. This films should have hit 1.5-2.0 billion, if it had just been a better film.

[rpmaluki]

I think a movie can still be very disappointing and still break a billion and the opposite also applies. This movie was bogged down with too many cons versus pros from script, to directing, to acting choices to editing, you name it. You are lucky if you found something to love or appreciate to negate all the bad stuff. It had SO much potential but they flushed it down the loo.

[Phil Clark]

Well, wouldn't that mean that the no-kill policy was due to editorial meddling and that the creators had no intention of their heroes having a no-kill policy?

Regardless of the reason for a "no kill" policy being implemented, the fact of the matter is that when you consider that Batman was in one title for the year that he didn't have the policy, and in the years since he has been in anywhere from one to 6 or more titles at a time, statistically that makes the vicious killer batman account for less than a half of a percent of all his stories, until the movies brought that back.

And while Kalorama said that it was Snyders intent to show that evolution of the character, the stance actually falls apart pretty quickly on closer scrutiny. Why? Because this Batman is an older Batman. Not a new, freshly formed, still learning Batman. So he should already have a No Kill policy in place. But that also brings to mind... why do a late in his career Batman if you are launching a new franchise? DOesn't that kind of build in an expiration date for the character?

I just feel Snyder is making decisions based on what he thinks is cool, as opposed to making good decisions that come from a love of the characters.

[Phil Clark]

I think a movie can still be very disappointing and still break a billion and the opposite also applies. This movie was bogged down with too many cons versus pros from script, to directing, to acting choices to editing, you name it. You are lucky if you found something to love or appreciate to negate all the bad stuff. It had SO much potential but they flushed it down the loo.

I have a hard time understanding how a disappointing film could do a Billion dollars. That seems to run counter to logic, and BvS seems to support that a disappointing film CANT break a billion.

[People Of The Earth]

BvS Batman isn't any better. The film acknowledges this.

That's actually my point - movie Batman is a worse version than the original, comicbook one.
Writing him off as an elseworld version of the original is basically mandatory imo.
That, or he's a really poorly executed adaptation of said original.

Mentally he's not the healthiest cabbage in the patch but at least there was a logic to it. And he wasn't going out of his way to save the worst types of criminals at the expense of innocent life.

I think your issue here is more philosophical in nature than with the character himself.
Batman doesn't kill.
He doesn't use guns.
That's been his comicbook DNA for decades now. He's not the Punisher. Even by the DKR standard - who supposedly inspired this movie version - he simply doesn't do kill.

Even if you find the concept of a "no kill code" absurd for vigilantes, you can't deny the nature of the character was trampled over to suit this movie's direction.
Which is what people are taking issue with (among other things).

[Holt]

nostalgia critic and angry joe review BvS

The party scene is hysterical.